Circumventing Heller and McDonald

As I was driving to work this morning, I was listening to WMAL as they were discussing proposal by DC Ward3 representative Mary Cheh to force DC gun owners to buy liability insurance with a value of at least $250,000. I guess if the petty tyrants in DC can’t outright ban firearms, because of that annoying Constitution thingy that was decided on by the Supreme Court, they can certainly make it impossible for DC residents to own firearms via “other” methods.

One of those methods is to make it prohibitively costly and onerous to “get permission” to keep and bear arms in the city, as meticulously detailed by Emily Miller at Washington Times. Washington DC is good at that. The city has pockets of good and pockets of pure ghetto evil. It has the rich, who can afford to jump through the multitude of hoops and pay the plethora of fees in order to be safe (or simply hire armed security), and it has the not so rich and downright impoverished, for whom purchasing a tool of self defense is an exorbitant expense, exacerbated by additional fees, paperwork and other bureaucratic requirements.

A female caller recounted how she moved from Maryland – a state with already some of the most onerous gun control laws on the books – to Washington DC, where it was nearly impossible for her to purchase a firearm. She is a veteran, trained in firearm use and safety, and had a license to carry a firearm in Maryland. She told the hosts how she moved to DC, and didn’t have the resources to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops in order to exercise her Second Amendment right in the city.

And she was raped.

In her home – in a neighborhood Mary Cheh claims is safe, and where she says residents don’t need guns.

She was raped, because she wasn’t allowed to exercise her right to basic self defense using the most effective tool in existence today.

This lady was forcibly disarmed by the DC government, and because she is a law-abiding citizen, she got rid of her firearms and was raped as a consequence.

She wanted to know whether Mary Cheh and her cohorts simply hate women, hate poor people or just hate guns as a means of citizens’ ability to oppose them by force, if necessary.

I’d like an answer to the same question.

Does Mary Cheh think that those who purchase guns illegally (read: the majority of the thugs in DC) will buy liability insurance?

Does she think that they will get a permit, undergo a background check, fill out paperwork and pay Charles Sykes – the only FFL in the city – to transfer a firearm for them?

Does she think disarming rape victims will somehow help reduce violence on the mean streets of DC?

No, she can’t possibly be this stupid. So the only answer is that she has such disdain for the people she represents, that she doesn’t trust them with firearms and doesn’t want them to be able to effectively defend themselves.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a look at your average gun banner. No, they’re not naive enough to think that criminals will undergo background checks. No, they’re not stupid enough to assume that criminals will bother paying fees, taxes and required insurance premiums for their firearms.

What they do believe is that by reducing the number of firearms in private hands, they will ultimately reduce the number of firearms overall, and that this is a good thing. They don’t bother to stop, think and differentiate between a firearm in the hands of a peaceable citizen and a firearm in the hands of a criminal thug. Such differences do not matter to the gun grabbers. To them, a gun is bad, and it’s equally as bad in the hands of a regular citizen as it is in the hands of a criminal.

To them, it makes no difference. Less guns is good, and it doesn’t matter if gun ownership by peaceful citizens is reduced, while criminal thugs continue to illegally carry. Like mindless zombies, they only want to reduce the number of guns, and it doesn’t matter in whose hands they remain.

I have often asked why Democrats hate poor people – why they want to disarm them and make it impossible for them to afford a tool of self defense. I’m coming to the realization that it’s not poor people they hate. They hate an inanimate object that they see as a means for people with which to commit criminal acts. And for them, it’s just easier to disarm the people with fewer resources to fight against their petty tyranny. They implement road blocks, bureaucratic hurdles and exorbitant fees – anything they can possibly do to prevent ordinary folks from arming themselves.

Targeting the poor and the citizens without resources is just low-hanging fruit. They’ll come for the rest soon enough.

Post navigation

6 responses

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, Niki. These people aren’t as stupid as the laws they propose suggest. They’ve got it in their pea-brains that if they eliminate guns from the law-abiding, they’ll EVENTUALLY eliminate them completely…which is merely sacrificing a bunch of people today, for a hoped-for “benefit” sometime down the road and without ANY assurance that what they want to do will even work…which it won’t. Any high school chem student can make gunpowder, lead is readily available in any car battery or fishing sinker and I can make a muzzle-loader on my own lathe with the help of a file and a pocket knife….not to mention a zip gun made out of any car radio aerial.

Rob

Hi, I'm Rob. I used to blog at Northern Virginia Conservative, but Nicki got way more hits anyhow, so I moved over here. My language is somewhat less colorful than hers, but I also get pretty passionate.

I'm a liberty Republican activist, and work in fundraising right now during the day.